Successful Aging: Multiple Trajectories and Population Heterogeneity

Abstract

Following Rowe and Kahn's successful aging model, this study identified successful aging as a distinctive aging trajectory and examined gender differences in the aging process. Using the Health and Retirement Study data (2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008), this study applied group-based trajectory analysis to identify multiple aging trajectories in a sample of older Americans aged 65 and over (N=9,226). Six dimensions were analyzed in the multi-trajectory model: chronic disease, physical functional limitation, disability, depressive symptom, cognitive functioning, and active engagement with life. Three aging trajectory groups were identified: successful aging, usual aging, and pathological aging in both samples of men and women. About one third of women and 40 percent of men fell into the successful aging trajectory. Women were more likely than men to experience functional limitations and disability over time, thus less likely to age successfully. Younger age and higher levels of education and income were related to the likelihood of successful aging. Findings provide support for a multidimensional model of successful aging that emphasizes the heterogeneity in physical, cognitive, and social functioning among the older population. Future research need incorporate subjective assessments of successful aging, examine the potential transitions among different aging trajectories, and assess the impacts of health behavior and resource variables on the aging outcomes.

Prevalence and correlates of successful ageing: a comparative study between China and South Korea

“…Moreover, with more availability of longitudinal data, recent studies began exploring trajectories of successful ageing (e.g. Hsu and Jone 2012;Tang 2014). …”

Profiles of Successful Aging and Their Association with All-Cause Mortality Risk among the Oldest-Old Chinese in Singapore

“…The SA profiles identified by LCA here indicated the great complexity in SA. Three of the four profiles -"frail and dejected," "fairly fit and neutral," and "fit and positive" -appeared to represent the continuum of SA but also suggested a typology of distinct SA profiles characterized by combination of objective and subjective indictors [12,16,17]. Notably, there also emerged the "frail but resilient" profile, in which the oldest-old tended to fail in objective criteria but have positive subjective appraisals.…”

“…The "frail but resilient" profile is in line with the established literature. In studies modeling person-centered trajectories of SA indicators, for example, one group of older adults was found to show deteriorating performance in objective indicators but sustain rather low level of depressive symptomatology [17,20].…”

“…Some scholars examined the trajectory patterns of the single aggregate index of SA or identified trajectory patterns of individual SA indicators and subsequently computed a composite score that counted the number of indicators for which respondents had a favorable trajectory [13][14][15]. Another issue in this line of research is that usually few subjective indicators, if any, are covered [16,17]. In addition, relevant research typically examines the antecedents but not the outcomes of SA profiles [18,19].…”

The Interaction Effects of Age, APOE and Common Environmental Risk Factors on Human brain Structure

“…A wealth of literature exists on human brain aging, with common findings including diminishing brain volumes, expanding ventricles, and cognitive decline (8), loss of WM microstructural integrity (9), and brain regions particularly susceptible to aging-related changes such as frontal and temporal cortex, putamen, thalamus and accumbens (10). However, the heterogeneity in aging trajectories is complex in terms of brain structure, brain function, and presence or absence of specific cognitive and behavioral symptoms (11)(12)(13). These heterogeneities primarily stem from a wide range of demographic, genetic and environmental exposures, including non-modifiable factors such as age (14), sex (15)(16)(17) and genetics (18)(19)(20), and modifiable factors like lifestyle choices (21)(22)(23)(24) and socioeconomic status (SES) (25,26).…”